If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Well, fglrx works better in Wine than the opensource Intel drivers in at least one game I've tested.

Example:

Battlefield 2:

On Intel (HD4000), I cannot enable lighting effects without crashing wine, and the gamma in the game is messed up.
On FGLRX (ATI4670), I can set all options to full settings, and the game plays perfectly.

The catalyst is on my personal "Blacklist" to
I will never touch the catalyst again and i will never buy a product who force me to use the "catalyst" again.
'AMD' taught me this circumstance 5 years in a round with a baton beating it on my head.

in my point of view these 'closed source' people @amd do have a brain damange.

just dont say such stupid stuff. you absolutate speed and feature set, thats retarded. there is more than this 2 categories out there.

No matter how wrong or right I might be, that is no way to talk to a human being.

Originally Posted by blackiwid

So if you are a developer of a opengl 4.0 game or something yes you will stick this other drivers that do not work for you at all on this list. but thats not the only point how you can judge a driver.

They are more way more stable1 than the closed ones and they are free2, and they are fast enough for 3d desktop3. So for all people who not want to play under linux because there are anyway no high grafics opensource games, and even this source-engin2 games are that crappy 10 year old grafics quality that it will even run with the intel-igps...4

so yes for commercial game developers you can maybe if you make really high quality (graphics wise) games blacklist this drivers, but for the 99% of the other people you cant.

It astonishes me time after time how little some people know about a certain thing or subject, and still would almost put their reputation on the line for that cause.

If you read my post again, I mentioned the Intel drivers for Linux might be ok for some usage.

1) In most cases untrue, except for non-GLSL pre OpenGL 3.x where the Intel drivers is generally more stable than the others except Nvidia(P).
2) A common mistake, some drivers are free, some have a degree of freedom. The "free" Radeon drivers still uses proprietary firmware.
3) A "3D desktop" should not be any stress for any recent card, but it is nice to have some proper power adjustment and efficiency. Nvidia(P) is very good here, Fglrx is mediocre but not terrible, Radeon/Nouveau is bad.
4) Many Linux users want to play games, Wine works ok for many games.

I would claim 95-98% of the users would benefit from Nvidias proprietary drivers. Some benefits:
* Best stability, with LTS drivers for Ubuntu!
* Best OpenGL and OpenCL support.
* Best video acceleration.
* Very good power management.
* Support for high quality antialiasing (32X CSAA for GeForce, 64x for Quadro).
* Support for stereoscopy (for those who care about that...).
* CUDA Support (BTW The CUDA complier is open source now).
For artists:
* Support for 10-pit per color, both DVI and DP, the Linux driver has more options than the Windows driver
For programmers:
* Access to the largest selection of OpenGL extensions, giving a taste for future specifications.

Nvidia is still not perfect.

And BTW, Nvidia uses open protocols, as well is CUDA, Nvidias configuration and installer

2) A common mistake, some drivers are free, some have a degree of freedom. The "free" Radeon drivers still uses proprietary firmware.

No. The radeon *hardware* uses proprietary *microcode*, just like most modern CPUs. That microcode happens to be driver-loaded on radeon hardware (and Intel/AMD CPUs) rather than being permanently burned into the chip on other hardware.

No matter how wrong or right I might be, that is no way to talk to a human being.

I did not want to insult you, its maybe a mix of beeing angree and having issues with english Sorry for that, I wanted to say that not you but your arguments are stupid...

Originally Posted by efikkan

1) In most cases untrue, except for non-GLSL pre OpenGL 3.x where the Intel drivers is generally more stable than the others except Nvidia(P).

I cannot agree to that, I use the radeon drivers for years now no X-Crash sinse then... or a system-crash...

Originally Posted by efikkan

2) A common mistake, some drivers are free, some have a degree of freedom. The "free" Radeon drivers still uses proprietary firmware.

And some have 0 degree of freedom the blobs from nvidia. So is there a possibility that there are Antifeatures in this firmware? I mean in the normal bioses there is I understand that, hopefully we all can flash soon to the future hardware our own coreboot.

But again is it possible that this firmwares load new code from the internet, and is it possible that in this firmware is a trojan running? I just ask maybe you say thats all true, than I have a Problem with that, thats the reason I dont want to use the nvidia drivers or other blobs. I would think you could not do such stuff in a graphics microcode firmware, but maybe I am wrong???? is it possible to use the linux-network stack from the grafics firmware? or write in files or something like that?

Originally Posted by efikkan

3) A "3D desktop" should not be any stress for any recent card, but it is nice to have some proper power adjustment and efficiency. Nvidia(P) is very good here, Fglrx is mediocre but not terrible, Radeon/Nouveau is bad.

Radeon is not bad, at least they implemented a basic power management, you can set the grafics power stuff to low or something... yes it could be better... but again one reason more to not play under linux, for a zacate as example thats no BIG problem... there I have more the problem that lenovo sucks so much that their lenevo specific cooler-control tools do not work properly for my 2 year old laptop... so its very loud sometimes and there is nothing I can do about it except modding the hole laptop... and btw, if they would have used a better cooler that it runs would not be that problem... now it runs a bit and is loud as hell... just failed design.

Originally Posted by efikkan

4) Many Linux users want to play games, Wine works ok for many games.

Even if you would ignore that you have to install a proprietary driver under linux, that replaces half of your xserver components... you still have the problem that new games often do not work with wine... And then again you start a program blob which loads if it wants trojans and stuff. I will buy maybe the new android game console or something at the moment I have a special windows pc for that... because virtualisation does not get better I cant just emulate a full windows with nearly full 3d speed anyway so I dont see a usecase that makes much sense if you care about freedom or even security and if you dont trust 200 different game companys like sony with its sony rootkits, or all the 99% game companys that install their drm-root-kits.

Originally Posted by efikkan

I would claim 95-98% of the users would benefit from Nvidias proprietary drivers. Some benefits:

I dont understand under what conditions you mean that? if the nvidia driver would work also for amd cards or what do you mean? if 100% of the users would buy nvidia hardware?

Originally Posted by efikkan

* Best stability, with LTS drivers for Ubuntu!

thats a very bold thesis, I do not have any crashs with the amd drivers or ati or whatever... "radeon", so how again is the nvidia driver more stable? I do hear that some people have big problems with it some are happy with it... I dont hear anybody except you now that say something about that radeon driver is unstable?

Originally Posted by efikkan

* Best OpenGL and OpenCL support.
* Best video acceleration.

Yes I must agree to this points, at least the last, maybe I am wrong with opengl/opencl with the amd blob but dont care much about that.

Originally Posted by efikkan

* Very good power management.

Nvidia even sold masses of defect laptop gpus, so that even if the driver would be good they fail because of that big problems with their hardware. And some series were good some were even extremely bad with the windows driver because of a hardware design that took much power but you could say the same about amd, so I think you have to look closer and you have to compare hardware/software together against other hardware/softwrae combinations. Its hard to compare here good.

Originally Posted by efikkan

* Support for high quality antialiasing (32X CSAA for GeForce, 64x for Quadro).
* Support for stereoscopy (for those who care about that...).
* CUDA Support (BTW The CUDA complier is open source now).
For artists:
* Support for 10-pit per color, both DVI and DP, the Linux driver has more options than the Windows driver
For programmers:
* Access to the largest selection of OpenGL extensions, giving a taste for future specifications.

yes for some people thats maybe nice stuff. At least in opengl the radeon driver seems to outrun the blob, if it keeps that speed shure it will be further than the blob in 2-3 years and feature-even in 2 years. and the amd blob now can opengl 4.0 are there newer versions of opengl?

( I dont mean outrunning in renderspeed, I mean in feature-support. )

Originally Posted by efikkan

And BTW, Nvidia uses open protocols, as well is CUDA, Nvidias configuration and installer

[/QUOTE]

open protocols rofl. that was a good joke... yes yes CUDA the trojan horse... amd will use it and make it to a industrie standard with that... and what will nvidia do next version 1.1 or whatever version of it will be have changes that work good with the next nvidia chip and bad with the next amd chip... yes that would be a wise Idea for nvidia to shoot themself in the head.